Taoiseach: "Possible ban on evictions during energy crisis"

Status
Not open for further replies.
AlbacoreA said:
You have to consider if in Ireland we have very short term mindset when it comes to rentals. We have the mindset that is temporary accomodation. But actually many people will rent for most if not all of their life. We also have the mindset that is not really a business premises, but the landlords personal accomodation. Temporarily borrowed by a tenant.

Is this really a professional approach.
Click to expand...
If you want to confine rental property investment to professionals who will be happy to let out properties indefinitely and never utilise these properties whenever they or their dependents need them, fire away, but do bear in mind that this would turn the current exodus of buy to let owners into a veritable flood.
 
"...utilise these properties whenever they or their dependents need them..."

You realize ".. whenever..." hasn't been allowed for many years.
 
AlbacoreA said:
You have to consider if in Ireland we have very short term mindset when it comes to rentals. We have the mindset that is temporary accomodation. But actually many people will rent for most if not all of their life. We also have the mindset that is not really a business premises, but the landlords personal accomodation. Temporarily borrowed by a tenant.

Is this really a professional approach.



thenegotiator.co.uk

How do rental markets in Europe compare to the UK?

As reform looms for the UK lettings market, The Negotiator looks at how the different European countries on the continent operate theirs.
thenegotiator.co.uk
Click to expand...
Renting a property is a commercial transaction nothing more nothing less. Both parties have a right to terminate the contract on agreed terms.

This is exactly the same principle when it comes to work. Employers and employees have the right to terminate an employment contract under the agreed timeframes. Do you expect an employer to continue employing people when the employer is no longer in business.

If tenants want to rent for the long term and landlords want to agree to this arrangement then fine. Institutional landlords are perfect for this situation but what has happened and continues to happen is the tenants get more rights and the landlord gets less.
 
I thought I just did.

Landlord rights is one thing. But there's another conversation around treating it like a business.
 
Last edited:
AlbacoreA said:
I thought I just did.

Landlord rights is one thing. But there's another conversation around tasting like a business.
Click to expand...
Another conversation we should have is our population has increased by 1,000,000 since the last census. Most of the high earners are comfortable with large institutional investors to rent from. The real issue is small Landlords have taken over the role of the Government by providing social housing for those reliant on housing payments.
 
AlbacoreA said:
The market probably has to move where a rental can't be chopped and changed between rental and LL 2nd home.
Click to expand...
T McGibney said:
Do you mean that if someone buys a property and rents it out, they can never thereafter occupy it themselves nor can a family member or someone else close to them?
Click to expand...
Not chopping and changing is a good way to describe it. The business-owner has to make a decision at the start on what kind of business, as in airbnb, etc.

They can rent to the relative if a property becomes vacant.
This idea of asking someone to leave to move a family member in, is just wrong. (I have a relative who's a landlord and I would never ask or suggest to move in while there's someone living there, though legally it's possible).

AlbacoreA said:
But some control and protection needs to be given to landlords whatever happens. A lowering of financial risk.
Click to expand...
Of course, evictions for non-payment, if that's what you mean, should be enforced.

Any eviction ban that might be brought in should be on the condition that rent is paid.

If not then then the landlord should be compensated for any rent that isn't paid. Actually would say that regardless of whether eviction ban is brought in or not. If a tenant has no choice of place to move to, and does not pay due to affordability reasons, the government should compensate the landlord, because the government has failed to provide accommodation for people who should be able to move if they need to.
 
Silversurfer said:
Another conversation we should have is our population has increased by 1,000,000 since the last census. Most of the high earners are comfortable with large institutional investors to rent from. The real issue is small Landlords have taken over the role of the Government by providing social housing for those reliant on housing payments.
Click to expand...

In fairness the govt forced that business on landlords. They changed the legislation to do that. The reason that was needed was because the govt has stopped building and providing social housing.
 
wondering said:
Not chopping and changing is a good way to describe it. The business-owner has to make a decision at the start on what kind of business, as in airbnb, etc.

They can rent to the relative if a property becomes vacant.
This idea of asking someone to leave to move a family member in, is just wrong. (I have a relative who's a landlord and I would never ask or suggest to move in while there's someone living there, though legally it's possible).


Of course, evictions for non-payment, if that's what you mean, should be enforced.

Any eviction ban that might be brought in should be on the condition that rent is paid.

If not then then the landlord should be compensated for any rent that isn't paid. Actually would say that regardless of whether eviction ban is brought in or not. If a tenant has no choice of place to move to, and does not pay due to affordability reasons, the government should compensate the landlord, because the government has failed to provide accommodation for people who should be able to move if they need to.
Click to expand...
Well exactly..
 
wondering said:
Not chopping and changing is a good way to describe it. The business-owner has to make a decision at the start on what kind of business, as in airbnb, etc.

They can rent to the relative if a property becomes vacant.
This idea of asking someone to leave to move a family member in, is just wrong. (I have a relative who's a landlord and I would never ask or suggest to move in while there's someone living there, though legally it's possible).

Of course, evictions for non-payment, if that's what you mean, should be enforced.

Any eviction ban that might be brought in should be on the condition that rent is paid.

If not then then the landlord should be compensated for any rent that isn't paid. Actually would say that regardless of whether eviction ban is brought in or not. If a tenant has no choice of place to move to, and does not pay due to affordability reasons, the government should compensate the landlord, because the government has failed to provide accommodation for people who should be able to move if they need to.
Click to expand...
Look it's very simple. The more restrictions you introduce on what a rental property owner can do with their own property, the fewer rental properties you will have, and the higher the rents and homelessness crises will escalate.
 
AlbacoreA said:
It's either a rental or is isn't.

Is that simple enough.
Click to expand...
There has to be fluidity in the private rental market or you won't get people investing and those that have are running for the hills. The government have shifted the blame for lack of housing on the small private landlord, while quietly pocketing up to 50% of the rental income. And now they are threatening us with indefinite tenancies. And landlords are still the bad guys!
 
T McGibney said:
If you take that attitude, you can safely bet that soon enough that it won't be a rental.
Click to expand...

This "attitude" you refer to is actually the law. Had been the law for considerable number of years.

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic if so why? Or genuinely not know the basics, if so also why?
 
Maggs065 said:
There has to be fluidity in the private rental market or you won't get people investing and those that have are running for the hills. The government have shifted the blame for lack of housing on the small private landlord, while quietly pocketing up to 50% of the rental income. And now they are threatening us with indefinite tenancies. And landlords are still the bad guys!
Click to expand...

Did you read what I posted about other countries.

What do you mean by fluidity and what do you understand by the term security of tenancy.
 
AlbacoreA said:
You can't evict people "whenever" you need one of the valid reasons and valid notice period.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

And it's being argued here that the list of currently valid reasons should be shortened.

Your claim that a landlord evicting a tenant whenever one of their dependents needs the property to live in "hasn't been allowed for many years" is totally inaccurate.
 
My comment was in relation to the "whenever" in your comment. Which is why I specifically quoted it.

But as an aside we've had a an eviction moratorium the lockdown, (27 March 2020) if they bring in another it will be the second one.
 
AlbacoreA said:
My comment was in relation to the "whenever" in your comment. Which is why I specifically quoted it.
Click to expand...
That's a fairly weak basis upon which to accuse me of sarcasm or "genuinely not know(ing) the basics".
AlbacoreA said:
But as an aside we've had a an eviction moratorium the lockdown, (27 March 2020) if they bring in another it will be the second one.
Click to expand...
Beside the point. That didn't last "for many years" so it doesn't advance or justify your claim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top